A vow to our leaders

[Alexis Jacobi]

Even better.... how about you study strategy texts, so you can better argue your position? I can give you a starter list of some classical texts.

What do I need to study war for? I'm not interested in war. I leave that to people who want to fight in the Somme and other places. MORON!

::: raises hand :::

If I may I beg to attempt an answer.

First, and this often happens, when I notice someone make an obviously ignorant and mal-informed statement I am inclined to feel a need to examine the reasons, the reasoning, behind their statement. Then, to better inform myself. So, the position you have (war-adverse -- which is certainly understandable and commendable) turns you away from looking squarely at the issue that stands behind war and warring.

If *war is politics by other means* there is a hint there as to what that struggle is. There may indeed be *times of peace* (or relative peace) but struggle, political strife, power-plays and also *war* on all the different levels is now and may always be a part of the human situation. If the object is to avoid open and outright war, then the other forms of warfare must be understood.

It is an involved topic of course but suffice to say that there has never been a time when warring, on one level or another, has not been part of the human reality. And since I am pretty certain that right now we are *in time of war*, and since it is the duty of a citizen to be informed, I do not think there is a sensible way around a better understanding of what war is.

The texts that Constantine refers to are definitely interesting and worthwhile.

We are *at war* in the United States it seems to me. True it is at the level of ideological war, or social war, and not quite at the level of civil war. So that condition, and the way this warring is being conducted, would very certainly need to be beter understood.

[Alexis Jacobi]

They also fought there because people thought they needed to fight. WTF do you want to fight for? Stop clinging to something we can't keep. Learn to negotiate peacefully with others for things instead of fighting them for it

This it seems to me is a statement by a man who does not understand the world in a realpolitik sense. If what I say is true -- if -- then I would suggest that the idealism which has you in its grip cannot be truly serviceful to your desired outcome.

All high-stakes negotiation is in fact battle. If that statement is true then it shifts how one approaches real issues in a *real world*.

[Gary Childress]

We are *at war* in the United States it seems to me. True it is at the level of ideological war, or social war, and not quite at the level of civil war. So that condition, and the way this warring is being conducted, would very certainly need to be beter understood.

War and disagreement are clearly different. Disagreement is not war. War is not "diplomacy". Here in lies the problem with people who read and become seduced by "thinkers" like Von Clausewitz or Becausewitz or whatever that sociopath's name was. You're condemned to play checkers if your only point of reference is checkers. Life is more vast and complicated than checkers or any other game with discernable rules. Rules are for people playing simple games. For life you need to become more open and dynamic.

[Gary Childress]

And you need to learn to want things that are worthy of being desired.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I think you may be incapable of understanding the points I try to bring to your attention.

It seems to me you operate from a sentimental position. And that is (always) a mistake except perhaps in personal relationships.

Nevertheless you bring out in relief that I need to revisit some of those seminal texts on statecraft, policy, as well as war and wars lesser forms.

War and disagreement are clearly different. Disagreement is not war. War is not "diplomacy".

My point has to do with consideration of the gradient. Extreme disagreement certainly can evolve into civil strife, and civil strife, when intense, is a form of war.

A governing structure can as well wage various forms of war against its population, or factions within the nation. And ideological war is a certain reality.

While war is on-going, diplomacy can and does take place. True. As well as in times of peace. So diplomacy is a distinct branch and is not “war” itself. You’ve got that right.

[Constantine]

Nobody should start off reading Clausewitz, of his two books only one is complete, and the main one (von Krieg) is massive and unfinished. I'd sooner recommend classical works on defence like Aeneas the Tactician or Mo Tzu.

[promethean75]

Any normal person would want war if by that war something they thought was evil would be ended by it. Including Gary C. So please gentlemen get that out of the way first. the argument isn't and couldn't ever be about whether war is justified. Normal people think it is. Instead any argument is gonna be about what constitutes justification for war.

We know Jakobi, Alexis is a high falutin' bourgeois evolean aristocratic elitist, so justifications for war might include:

Defending the ruling and privileged classes from the lowly uncultured Columbian proles if they were ever to assemble in the cobble stone streets armed with garden rakes and demand that the Columbian government turn over its power to a group of selected representatives of the people's revolutionary movement of Columbia.

Now it's quite likely that if Gary were in Columbia, he would be one of the guys in the street with a rake... so clearly we have a strong case of irresolvable conflict and difference of interest, and unless the two dasein are absolved into a singular class can there be any objective settlement of the matter and we must remain moral subjectivists when addressing justifications for war.

[promethean75]

"Thrice times might the iron cannons of war ring out before the Indonesian soldiers, engaged in the passion of battle as they are, find themselves suddenly distraught, asking what for. But once or twice is enough - war has been done, the ears are ringing - thrice times having come too late"

- Gustave Vonhamsonshmidt, A Psychological Study Of The Circumstances Of War, excerpt from a journal Gustave kept while on tour during the Indonesian war of 1809.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Defending the ruling and privileged classes from the lowly uncultured Columbian proles if they were ever to assemble in the cobble stone streets armed with garden rakes and demand that the Columbian government turn over its power to a group of selected representatives of the people's revolutionary movement of Columbia.

However, that is not in fact my view. I am an exponent of education and wealth-building among those poorer classes (and I am involved in education).

That’s Colombia by the way!

[promethean75]

In my country we spell words the way they sound and are pronounced, and nobody ever says Col-ohm-bia they say Col-um-bia.

This rule stands for words without a 'k' at the beginning obviously. One doesn't say kuh-nuckles but nuckles.

[promethean75]

https://voca.ro/14JG4qXdYDiB

[Gary Childress]

I think you may be incapable of understanding the points I try to bring to your attention.

It seems to me you operate from a sentimental position. And that is (always) a mistake except perhaps in personal relationships.

Nevertheless you bring out in relief that I need to revisit some of those seminal texts on statecraft, policy, as well as war and wars lesser forms.

War and disagreement are clearly different. Disagreement is not war. War is not "diplomacy".

My point has to do with consideration of the gradient. Extreme disagreement certainly can evolve into civil strife, and civil strife, when intense, is a form of war.

A governing structure can as well wage various forms of war against its population, or factions within the nation. And ideological war is a certain reality.

While war is on-going, diplomacy can and does take place. True. As well as in times of peace. So diplomacy is a distinct branch and is not “war” itself. You’ve got that right.

Again, extract your head from Clausewitz and the need for war evaporates like a foul odor after a Prussian general lets one go.

[Gary Childress]

It seems to me you operate from a sentimental position. And that is (always) a mistake except perhaps in personal relationships.

Wisdom comes from a mind that is engaged in the world as a body that feels. If you want to sit in an armchair and orchestrate war as though the human beings being murdered in it are mere tokens on a chess board, then, that is your choice. Just know that every one of those people is being murdered at your behest, Von AJ.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It has nothing to do with me. Nor at this point with Clausewitz. It has to do with the *objective* world and the way it operates.

Your emotions have no bearing or effect on that. They're just rather silly emotions. Like an old woman.

[Gary Childress]

It has nothing to do with me. Nor at this point with Clausewitz. It has to do with the *objective* world and the way it operates.

Your emotions have no bearing or effect on that. They're just rather silly emotions. Like an old woman.

Who best to keep a stubborn and potentially dangerous old man in line other than an old woman? And when there are none immediately handy at the moment it becomes necessary to do what is necessary.